Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?


  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I put that quote from Vandana to you comparing planting GM crops to rape you defended it on the basis that it was part of her eco-feminist worldview, anyone can follow the link in my previous post to see that. Funny how selective you are when it comes to performative outrage about rape comparisons, almost as if it’s not sincere.

Again, risible stuff on veganism. 7th Day Adventists funding Viva! sounds pretty unlikely to be honest, but I’ll stand corrected if you’ve got anything credible to verify that claim. But even if true that would be very far from your claim that veganism has far right origins.

You’re an idiot.
Let them click on it then and see what I said in context.

I'm not worried about that because I didn't (as you well know) agree with her assertion, just asked you to clarify what your problem was with the assertion that she did make, which you didn't.
 
obviously biased, but Plant Based news seemed to me moderate and eveidence based. They cite Michael Greger often and he backs up his claims all the time. Now whether he uses credible citations is another matter
Any reason why you're ignoring all the other articles I posted?

edit: I now see it was because you were responding to a pathological pro-meat advocate who has a long history of ignoring/dismissing any thing that criticises the very real cruelty and abuse prevalent in meat production.
 
Any reason why you're ignoring all the other articles I posted?

edit: I now see it was because you were responding to a pathological pro-meat advocate who has a long history of ignoring/dismissing any thing that criticises the very real cruelty and abuse prevalent in meat production.
I don't understand how this pertains. I simply asked whether PBN were credible. Surely you would agree that just because someone adopts a particular diet that alone isn't evidence of credibility.
 
The seventh day adventists are a mad christian group - most famous of them was Kellogg (of cereal fame), they believe meat is too rich and causes people to fornicate (or something), hence the invention of the cornflake.

They still donate lots of money to Viva!
What is Viva?
 
What is Viva?

They're a UK-based animal rights organisation that promotes veganism for secular ethical reasons. The Seventh Day Adventists are a US-based evangelical christian denomination who promote a plant-based diet for health reasons. On the face of it, it seems incredibly unlikely that the later would fund the former. Who knows though, maybe Funky_monks will verify his implausible-sounding claim with some evidence. Or perhaps he will admit - through his words or silence - that he plucked that 'fact' right out of arse, as he's prone to do on this topic.
 
Last edited:
They're a UK-based animal rights organisation that promotes veganism for secular ethical reasons. The Seventh Day Adventists are a US-based evangelical christian denomination who promote a plant-based diet for health reasons. On the face of it, it seems incredibly unlikely that the later would fund the former. Who knows though, maybe Funky_monks will verify his implausible-sounding claim with some evidence. Or perhaps he will admit - through his words or silence - that he plucked that 'fact' right out of arse, as he's prone to do on this topic.
So, the fact that the vast majority of my assertions on this thread have come with peer-reviewed journal article support has managed to evade you thus far?
Or, as ever, are you just making stuff up?
Also, a cursory google will tell you that both Viva! and the seventh day adventists are global organisations.

I'll find the Viva! links, I have them somewhere.
 
Last edited:
The wildlife charity WWF-UK shelved a report that warned how intensive chicken production is devastating the River Wye, the Observer can reveal.

Since 2018, the charity has received more than £6m in donations from the supermarket chain Tesco, which has faced action from campaigners over the decline of the Wye because many of the intensive poultry farms in the river’s catchment area are in its supply chain.



The charity was due to publish a report on fixing the food system, which included the impact of intensive chicken farming on the river. One source claimed the proposed 2022 report was pulled after concerns were raised about the potential fallout.

WWF said this weekend the report failed to meet its rigorous standards and the decision was not linked to any partnership.

But a source with knowledge of the decision said: “Shelving the report was completely the wrong thing to do. They didn’t want to rock the boat. The attitude was: ‘We’re going after a partner. the point?’”
From the Guardian

Disturbing if true but yet more evidence of so called philanthropy putting pressure on charities and pressure groups to self censor.
 
So you're actually denying animal abuse goes on in farms, yes? Like it doesn't exist?

Have you not bothered to read any of the well documented cases listed in this thread or do you prefer to live in some kind of fantasy land, utterly divorced from reality?

Here's a few clues to get you back to reality. Took me one minute of Googling to find this info and there's plenty more.







Of course it exists it's just absolutely nowhere near as common as this lot are trying to make out.
 
Of course it exists it's just absolutely nowhere near as common as this lot are trying to make out.

Given how hard it is to monitor farms and their workers - and seeing as there have been many documented cases of Red Tractor farms abusing animals - I'd suggest it's certainly far more common than you seem to think.
 
Given how hard it is to monitor farms and their workers - and seeing as there have been many documented cases of Red Tractor farms abusing animals - I'd suggest it's certainly far more common than you seem to think.
Suggest all you like it doesn't make it factual or proven. Just an extrapolation based on a selective data set.
 
Suggest all you like it doesn't make it factual or proven. Just an extrapolation based on a selective data set.
One thing is for sure and that's that the Red Tractor scheme fails spectacularly to actually guarantee animal welfare standards and that multiple farms are responsible for disgusting cruelty and abuse.
 
Given how hard it is to monitor farms and their workers - and seeing as there have been many documented cases of Red Tractor farms abusing animals - I'd suggest it's certainly far more common than you seem to think.

The data bears out that abuse on farms and in slaughterhouses is widespread and that enforcement is weak and, in some areas, non-existent. The most comprehensive report in this area was published by the Animal Law Foundation in 2022.

It found that, in respect of the period between 2018-21, the following were identified in respect of inspections, compliance and repercussions:

  • Fewer than 3% of UK farms were inspected (2.95%);
  • Upon receiving a complaint, just half (50.45%) of farms were then inspected;
  • Of those inspections, approximately one-third (31.38%) identified non-compliance on the same site;
  • Just 0.33% of farms were prosecuted following initial complaints of non-compliance.
With respect to abuses, the report documents that:

Over the past five years at least 65 covert investigations have been conducted. In every case some form of illegality was witnessed, including direct cruelty, untreated lameness, mutilations without anaesthetic, ammonia-caused body burns, prolonged suffering at slaughter and more. The low rate of official inspections means the scale of the problem is not fully understood and the illegality is going largely undetected and therefore unpunished. Even where illegality is filmed and reported to the relevant authority, our data shows that over 60% of cases led to no legislative enforcement action.

In relation specifically to pigs, the report notes:

Along with deliberate physical abuse, the presence of severe injuries and failure to provide treatment in all 13 investigations conducted by animal organisations into UK pig farms, tail docking was present on 11 farms (85%). Like any mutilation, tail docking causes extreme pain to pigs. Routine taildocking is illegal in the United Kingdom and can only be carried out as a last resort if suitable enrichment has already been provided. Despite this,the investigations suggest that tail docking is happening on most pig farms in the UK, often with no attempt, or an inadequate attempt, to provide enrichment. The failure to provide adequate enrichment is an offence under animal welfare legislation in itself...

data collected from 2013-2017 shows 71% of pigs in the UK had their tails docked - carried out without anaesthetic or analgesic when the piglet is 1-3 days old

Then there's the work of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from 2016:

Reports by vets and hygiene inspectors detail more than 4,000 severe breaches of animal welfare regulations over the past two years, including instances of chickens being boiled alive and trucks of animals suffocating or freezing to death....
Vets and meat hygiene inspectors working for the FSA inside abattoirs reported a total of 9,511 animal welfare breaches between July 2014 and June this year... A single breach can involve hundreds of animals.


More bad apples I guess:



etc etc.

On the topic of torturing pigs to death with C02 gas, the government's own data shows that is the fate that befalls 88% of pigs killed for flesh consumers.
 
Last edited:
So they used the web design services of a vegan company... that means what exactly? Care to point to a flaw in the report's data set or methodology Big Brain?
The data bears out that abuse on farms and in slaughterhouses is widespread and that enforcement is weak and, in some areas, non-existent. The most comprehensive report in this area was published by the Animal Law Foundation in 2022.


1000002399.jpg
They seem to be simply making shit up. I can't copy/paste from that report, and I'm not going cropping screenshots to point out more of their nonsense, but the whole thing was obviously written by someone who doesn't quite have a grasp on the truth.
 
So they used the web design services of a vegan company... that means what exactly? Care to point to a flaw in the report's data set or methodology Big Brain?
If they were indeed just responsible for the web design then it would be a ludicrous assumption to use that to cast doubts on the data. I've designed more websites than I can remember and at no point did my personal politics and beliefs somehow seep into the design (apart from a Snickers Euro championships website where I sneaked in Cardiff City images).
 
Some truly baffling takes on Red Tractor on this thread.

Red Tractor was set up as a voluntary scheme to guarantee food safety in the light of the BSE crisis.
It has obviously since expanded, but it's remit was never welfare much over and above the legal minimum (as dictated in the legally binding welfare codes of practice set out by government).
The idea was that if you were Red Tractor assured, you'd get a premium for your product (as a farmer). In reality, it doesn't work like that, in most sectors (esp pig, poultry and dairy), all Red Tractor does is buys you access to the main markets. If you produced any of these things and were not RT assured, you would really struggle to sell your produce at all. So; no premium there, then.
Farms are Inspected at least annually by RT, and it is the farmer, not anyone else who pays to be in the scheme.

It is a little less restrictive in sheep and beef. I was never RT assured, as I couldn't be arsed to pay to have someone to come and inspect my sheep/paperwork (in reality, they spend a lot of time looking at your paperwork), and the "premium" I would have got in market would have barely paid for my RT membership. I think, even back then, it cost £500 pa to be in Red Tractor.

This does not mean I didn't get inspected - Animal Health is the Government body responsible for this, who are part of Trading Standards.
I got inspected firstly when I went from 20 sheep as a hobby to 250 sheep when I decided to make a career of it, the increase in animals coming onto my holding triggers an inspection, apparently, and once again when I was having trouble with dog walkers on a down I rented, who decided that because I had the temerity to be putting up signs asking them to keep their dogs on leads around sheep, they would ring Animal Health. The Animal Health people soon got sick of that though, having come a few times and found my sheep in good health, so the ended up just ringing me to let me know a complaint had been made in the end. I suppose they could have covertly inspected those sheep (and maybe they did) as a couple of footpaths ran right across that down.

So, actually, if farms have grazing animals and/or animals outdoors and footpaths, its a piece of pee to inspect them. I know DEFRA use drones now to inspect cropping areas and map them against subsidy claims (eg for wildflower margins etc) to catch out those trying to play the system.

It surprises me not that following inspection (I'm assuming by Animal Health and not RT, because all RT farms are inspected every year, at least once, and if hey fail, they lose RT standards) that no further action is taken, because people call them for all manner of spurious shite - I've had them called because lambs were bleating (they do that, its how they find their mums), I've had them called because my sheep had been shorn recently and they thought that they might get cold (in July), Ive had idiots pick up perfectly decent lambs saying that they had been abandoned, when they hadn't, which means I'd then had to bottle rear them because I had no idea where their dam was on that down to put them back (once lambs get to being a few days old, the ewe will go off and graze and leave them in some long grass or in some scrub or something and come back for them later). Tip for walkers: if you find a lamb/lambs happily curled up asleep in some long grass they are probably fine. if you disturb them and they get up and they then stretch, they are well fed. Unfed lambs tend to wander round bleating because they are hungry, they will also have a "pinched" appearance because they have an empty tummy.
 
Last edited:
Some truly baffling takes on Red Tractor on this thread.

Red Tractor was set up as a voluntary scheme to guarantee food safety in the light of the BSE crisis.
It has obviously since expanded, but it's remit was never welfare much over and above the legal minimum (as dictated in the legally binding welfare codes of practice set out by government).
The idea was that if you were Red Tractor assured, you'd get a premium for your product (as a farmer). In reality, it doesn't work like that, in most sectors (esp pig, poultry and dairy), all Red Tractor does is buys you access to the main markets. If you produced any of these things and were not RT assured, you would really struggle to sell your produce at all. So; no premium there, then.
Farms are Inspected at least annually by RT, and it is the farmer, not anyone else who pays to be in the scheme.

It is a little less restrictive in sheep and beef. I was never RT assured, as I couldn't be arsed to pay to have someone to come and inspect my sheep/paperwork (in reality, they spend a lot of time looking at your paperwork), and the "premium" I would have got in market would have barely paid for my RT membership. I think, even back then, it cost £500 pa to be in Red Tractor.

This does not mean I didn't get inspected - Animal Health is the Government body responsible for this, who are part of Trading Standards.
I got inspected firstly when I went from 20 sheep as a hobby to 250 sheep when I decided to make a career of it, the increase in animals coming onto my holding triggers an inspection, apparently, and once again when I was having trouble with dog walkers on a down I rented, who decided that because I had the temerity to be putting up signs asking them to keep their dogs on leads around sheep, they would ring Animal Health. The Animal Health people soon got sick of that though, having come a few times and found my sheep in good health, so the ended up just ringing me to let me know a complaint had been made in the end. I suppose they could have covertly inspected those sheep (and maybe they did) as a couple of footpaths ran right across that down.

So, actually, if farms have grazing animals and/or animals outdoors and footpaths, its a piece of pee to inspect them. I know DEFRA use drones now to inspect cropping areas and map them against subsidy claims (eg for wildflower margins etc) to catch out those trying to play the system.

It surprises me not that following inspection (I'm assuming by Animal Health and not RT, because all RT farms are inspected every year, at least once, and if hey fail, they lose RT standards), because people call them for all manner of spurious shite - I've had them called because lambs were bleating (they do that, its how they find their mums), I've had them called because my sheep had been shorn recently and they thought that they might get cold (in July), Ive had idiots pick up perfectly decent lambs saying that they had been abandoned, when they hadn't, which means I'd then had to bottle rear them because I had no idea where their dam was on that down to put them back (once lambs get to being a few days old, the ewe will go off and graze and leave them in some long grass or in some scrub or something and come back for them later). Tip for walkers: if you find a lamb/lambs happily curled up asleep in some long grass they are probably fine. if you disturb them and they get up and they then stretch, they are well fed. Unfed lambs tend to wander round bleating because they are hungry, they will also have a "pinched" appearance because they have an empty tummy.

Yeah but what do you know Funky_monks , if only some inner-city-dwelling-meat-eschewing-paragon would come show your real life experience and professional knowledge for what it is!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom